For second year in a row Nevada ranked most dangerous state! (Las Vegas: sex offenders, crime rate) - (NV) - Page 3 - City-Data Forum

sheriff · 06-07-2007, 04:54 PM

RWF: you must remember that many, many people have moved to S Nevada; most from very nice places, and feel the need to justify their move to a hellhole like LV. Most are in denial for that reason. Nevada/and/or LV is at the bottom of just about every good list, and at the top of every bad list.

olecapt · 06-07-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheriff

RWF: you must remember that many, many people have moved to S Nevada; most from very nice places, and feel the need to justify their move to a hellhole like LV. Most are in denial for that reason. Nevada/and/or LV is at the bottom of just about every good list, and at the top of every bad list.

Lost all your money and went home mad huh?

sheriff · 06-07-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olecapt

Lost all your money and went home mad huh?

If you think S Nv is a nice place to live, I'm very happy for you.

olecapt · 06-07-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheriff

If you think S Nv is a nice place to live, I'm very happy for you.

You are happy then...and that is good...you started out sounding a little grouchy.

sheriff · 06-07-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olecapt

You are happy then...and that is good...you started out sounding a little grouchy.

Oh. no, quite the contrary; Peace, Love, and Smith&Wesson.

RedWingsFan · 06-07-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheriff

RWF: you must remember that many, many people have moved to S Nevada; most from very nice places, and feel the need to justify their move to a hellhole like LV. Most are in denial for that reason. Nevada/and/or LV is at the bottom of just about every good list, and at the top of every bad list.

That's a good point about why people are so defensive (justifying their move) when you say something negative about Las Vegas or NV in general. Never thought of that, but I can see how it would give them an attitude of sorts.

garth · 06-07-2007, 07:21 PM

I happen to find it interesting that someone spends so much of their vaulable time promoting the negative aspects of a place where they no longer have a vested interest. It's one thing to answer a question from a position of knowledge (which I fully support), but it's another thing to treat the subject as a personal vendetta forum. Such actions make me wonder about an individual's motivation or condition.

I also find it interesting, that when reasonable points are brought to light, they're ignored and iridiculous misdirections are offered in their stead. That means to me that the points cannot be refuted and the reply is meant to deflect the conversation as has been successfully accomplished. It's an indication that the original position is poorly supported and difficult to discuss in the light of newly presented information or that the person is so blinded by hate or contempt that they're unable to see beyond their own emotions.

With all of that said, I think that someone like RWF might be surprised that someone like me finds a place like Las Vegas an undesirable place to live . . . for me . . . for a variety of reasons. That's why I haven't shettled there. However, I also acknowledge that other people may find it attractive for another set of reasons. I feel sorry that such an understanding seems to be beyond some and that such a lack of understanding too often results in unproductive threads, such as this one has turned out to be.

I would also hope that others eventually realize that Las Vegas isn't the be all end of of the State of Nevada. There are many other areas that are nothing like the big city in the south. Tahoe and Incline Village come to mind along with towns like Minden or Gardnerville. So, when someone posts with such vigor against the State as a whole, and paints the entire State with their opinions formed in a limited location like Las Vegas, it's only reasonable and appropriate for someone to address the misinformation.

To consider such an action other than appropriate, or color it with ridicule, is not right, IMO. Conversely, to attempt to censure or ridicule someone who holds a poor opinion of some place, based on their experience and knowledge, is also not right, IMO. However, to extend an opinion beyond a scope of knowledge or experience is just not right, again IMO. It reflects poorly on everyone.

So, I hope this post doesn't fall on deaf ears, but I have few expectations that things will change. Perhaps the only understanding that can come from this is for others to realize that, if you insult something that someone holds dear or some place where they have held different experiences, expect a discussion. The goal, IMO, is that the discussion can be done with some form of personal respect rather than in the form of a ridicule and in the manner of a vendetta, as has occurred in this and too many other threads.

Enough of that. G'bye from Northern Nevada. I need to go walk the dog again.

sheriff · 06-07-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garth

I happen to find it interesting that someone spends so much of their vaulable time promoting the negative aspects of a place where they no longer have a vested interest. It's one thing to answer a question from a position of knowledge (which I fully support), but it's another thing to treat the subject as a personal vendetta forum. Such actions make me wonder about an individual's motivation or condition.

I also find it interesting, that when reasonable points are brought to light, they're ignored and iridiculous misdirections are offered in their stead. That means to me that the points cannot be refuted and the reply is meant to deflect the conversation as has been successfully accomplished. It's an indication that the original position is poorly supported and difficult to discuss in the light of newly presented information or that the person is so blinded by hate or contempt that they're unable to see beyond their own emotions.

With all of that said, I think that someone like RWF might be surprised that someone like me finds a place like Las Vegas an undesirable place to live . . . for me . . . for a variety of reasons. That's why I haven't shettled there. However, I also acknowledge that other people may find it attractive for another set of reasons. I feel sorry that such an understanding seems to be beyond some and that such a lack of understanding too often results in unproductive threads, such as this one has turned out to be.

I would also hope that others eventually realize that Las Vegas isn't the be all end of of the State of Nevada. There are many other areas that are nothing like the big city in the south. Tahoe and Incline Village come to mind along with towns like Minden or Gardnerville. So, when someone posts with such vigor against the State as a whole, and paints the entire State with their opinions formed in a limited location like Las Vegas, it's only reasonable and appropriate for someone to address the misinformation.

To consider such an action other than appropriate, or color it with ridicule, is not right, IMO. Conversely, to attempt to censure or ridicule someone who holds a poor opinion of some place, based on their experience and knowledge, is also not right, IMO. However, to extend an opinion beyond a scope of knowledge or experience is just not right, again IMO. It reflects poorly on everyone.

So, I hope this post doesn't fall on deaf ears, but I have few expectations that things will change. Perhaps the only understanding that can come from this is for others to realize that, if you insult something that someone holds dear or some place where they have held different experiences, expect a discussion. The goal, IMO, is that the discussion can be done with some form of personal respect rather than in the form of a ridicule and in the manner of a vendetta, as has occurred in this and too many other threads.

Enough of that. G'bye from Northern Nevada. I need to go walk the dog again.

Very good! You are one of the few posters on these type sites that realize LV is actually not Nevada at all, but Los Angeles East.

olecapt · 06-07-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheriff

Very good, Garth !! You are one of the few posters on these type sites that realize LV is not Nevada at all; but rather Los Angeles East.

Well of course it is Los Angeles East...It is also "Nevada". And Reno is a well removed suburb of San Fransico. So...

You really should move here...we have a love affair with the Smith and Wesson...you would be right at home. Where else you gonna live that you can pack right into the casinos and most shows?

This is Nirvana for the S&W crowd. Well you can do to rural Idaho...but then there is no place to pack the piece to that is worth the trouble.

sheriff · 06-07-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olecapt

Well of course it is Los Angeles East...It is also "Nevada". And Reno is a well removed suburb of San Fransico. So...

You really should move here...we have a love affair with the Smith and Wesson...you would be right at home. Where else you gonna live that you can pack right into the casinos and most shows?

This is Nirvana for the S&W crowd. Well you can do to rural Idaho...but then there is no place to pack the piece to that is worth the trouble.

Sorry to inform you of this; but Reno is not a suburb of SF. The majority of new residents (last 10 years) in LV are from LA. The majority of new residents in Reno (same period), are not from SF. Faulty analogy. Not only that, SF's very existence was built because of the Reno area, while LA was not built because of LV.